Laws to protect the protected?

So a niece, lured by all the promises of a blissfully contended modern life by being a proud owner of an iPhone 14Pro, decided to 'not so smartly' and allegedly took her aunt's debit cards to purchase her ticket to freedom. Unfortunately, the long arms of the law had caught up with her. Her long march through the corridors of justice in handcuffs excites the journalist of the country's premier newspaper. Of course, nobody in the country will have the gravitas to question the need to handcuff a petty thief. Even someone who allegedly squandered the nation's sovereign and turned the country into an international embarrassment still cat-walked these same corridors flashing his branded suits, dressed to the nines uncuffed.

That is the thing about the law. The law and enforcements target the commoner. Paradoxically, the legal hierarchy is there to protect the high-heeled. Wealth can ease the path to procure all the lawful representation money can buy. If a person fails to obtain an acquittal, have no fear. The higher courts are at your disposal, with all the robed sharks demanding an arm or a leg to give you a clean chit. At an even higher loot, at an even higher court, if retrial should fail, experts to the experts can be summoned with much pomp and splendour to tear up the charge sheet.

A poor man can just pray for a miracle, an early discharge for good behaviour and God's grace at heaven's gate or purgatory.

With 160 criminal charges, they still
won elections and graced the august
house of democracy.

The recent triad type of killing of a gangster turned politician, Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf while under police custody in Prayagraj opened a can of worms of the politico-law enforcement- electoral machinery-mafia unholy union, at least in India. I think this web of deceit is confined to third-world countries, banana republics, and even mature democracies. Just that the mainstream media is quick to quash such bad publicity of their own nation but is super efficient in highlighting other countries as a Wild West.

Over the years, through mishaps and experience, government offices have secured a safety mechanism to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability. Many checks and balances have been instituted towards this end. An honest leader will follow the pre-set path of prosperity, the primary aim of the nation's and citizens' well-being. Their tenure is limited, and they have to stamp their legacy in a short time. Undoubtedly, there would be backstabbers who would wait to pull their rug under your feet anytime, jealous the leader had beaten him to the post. Honey-trapping, freebies and lure to corruption would be red-carpeted for the weak-hearted to fall into. Keeping all this in mind, a leader who had gone through the rank and file would know how to protect himself. The system itself would ensure no hanky-panky is easy to carry out.

If not for opposition to bringing in foreign lawyers, bigwigs from Queen's
Counsel would be sauntering haughtily along our corridors of native justice.

With all these safety nets in place, it is challenging to unknowingly earn himself a corruption charge. Is it wrong for me to assume that a leader charged with criminal breach of people's trust is guilty unless proven otherwise? With all the dos and don'ts at their disposal, and the law feels there is a case for the leader to answer, what do you make out of all these? Small fries, sharks, and whales are surfacing with their petrifying shenanigans.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.